I’m curious as to what bar you are using? As in, do you need to agree 100% with a candidate/party to vote for them? 90%? 80%? Because if you are waiting for someone to match you 100%, you should probably be running yourself. What are the key issues that you are going to base your decision on?

Peter, you might want to review the CPC policies on returning power to the provinces…

It’s not so much the “bar” as it is, well, everything….. there are no doubt reasonable people within each of the parties but what clout does a single MP actually have? Squat, that’s what they have, absolutely squat.

Having said that:

I just don’t see the Liberals as trustworthy guardians of the country - they’ve gotten sloppy and slack [very slack], and I just don’t believe them. They’ve had plenty of time to do something worthwhile but, aside from the fact that they’ve done wonders with the debt, we are stagnating as a nation, they have no vision.

A CPoC movement to the political right is not, IMO, in the best interests of the country. Points considered in making that statement include Harpers invitation to the US on the ICBM program that is just plain scary, and reopening the gay marriage debate, something that has already been settled by Parliament (regardless of what the idiots who say “it wasn’t a free vote so it doesn’t count” think), is more than worrisome. Add that to the ‘throwing people in jail for longer periods of time is the answer to crime’ and it’s safe to say they have a vision, I just don’t like it.

The NDP is, I suppose, a viable alternative to the Liberals that is closer to what I think we should be, but I see no real vision there either.

The Greens, some of their policy stuff is good, some of it not good at all, I could go that route as a protest vote if I thought it would be viewed as such, but it won’t.

I took a few minutes to skim through the CAP material - there’s some good stuff there to be sure, there’s also some extreme stuff.

The Marijuana Party? Not even a good protest vote choice.

The Indy guy? Rooting for the underdog is a good thing and he is, if I don’t go the spoiling of the ballot route, worth considering. Wouldn’t it be cool if enough independents managed to get elected that they had some real power - damn!! I’d like that. Of course, as soon as they banded together to weild that power they would becaome exactly what I think is wrong with the system - a block of votes.

I want something I can get behind and push, you cannot possibly imagine how very damned tired I am of walking into the voting booth and putting an “X” beside the name of the group that I think will ĵ(|{ things up the least.

So tell me, where does that leave a reasonable leftie?

Spoiling the ballot in some huge, public, and dramatic way looks better and better every day?

That may well in fact only be one part of the plan but it’s the part that they are hyping - longer manditory minimum sentences, longer manditory minimum sentences, longer manditory minimum sentences, longer manditory minimum sentences…. how many times have we heard it already?

Where is the “and this is how are we are going to deal with the elements, circumstances, and conditions, that lead so many people into crime” policy?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that people who commit violent crimes should be walking the streets within 30 days by any means, and I’ve seen far to many judges take a whole cart loads of factors and circumstances into consideration when sentencing that have, IMO, no place in sentencing, to make me happy.

These “factors” and “circumstances” are what need to be addressed by governments and communities, not judges, and longer manditory minimums is not the way to do that.

If jail is not a deterent to those who grow up so disadvantaged that the “inside” is preferable to the “outside”, and jail is not a deterent to those who have so little hope that whether they’re “in” or “out” simply makes no difference to them, how is keeping them in jail longer going to work?

If we woke up tomorrow to find the government had passed legislation making robbing convenience stores (in any manner) worth 10 years in jail for the first offense, 20 years for the second, and 50 years for the third convenience stores would still be robbed every day of the week.

As for the Rhino Party no one wishes more than I that they were still in gear….. I have such fond memories of working with the local Rhino candidate on his election bid during the 1979 federal election; many cases of beer went into the development of his policy paper outlining where he sat on the issues. We built on the main party platform of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll by offering to mount huge outboard motors on the north end of Baffin Island and take everyone on a Caribbean vacation if we won - those were indeed the days, and the lack of a protest vote is sorely missed.

>>”If jail is not a deterent to those who grow up so disadvantaged that the “inside” is preferable to the “outside”, and jail is not a deterent to those who have so little hope that whether they’re “in” or “out” simply makes no difference to them, how is keeping them in jail longer going to work?”

SL, the ” inside ” is not preferable to the ” outside ” for the vast majority of criminal offenders, be they hard core or petty. This is a myth. A really bad one, I might add.

Jail is a deterrent, not to mention a foolproof preventative measure for the period during which the offender is incarcerated. The threat of jail, once exposed as largely meaningless, is not a deterrent. Very important distinction, SL.

I’m all for programs targeting ” root causes,” but let’s dispense with the John Howard Society bullshit that people commit serious crimes because they have ” no hope.” Bad people usually murder, rape, commit home invasions, car jackings and other armed holdups because they’re, well…, bad…..

To suggest that evil, sadistic, sociopathic thugs are anything other than evil, sadistic, sociopathic thugs is an insult to the many economically disadvantaged people who are not criminally inclined.

>>”If we woke up tomorrow to find the government had passed legislation making robbing convenience stores (in any manner) worth 10 years in jail for the first offense, 20 years for the second, and 50 years for the third convenience stores would still be robbed every day of the week.”

I rather doubt they would, SL. No, convenience store robberies wouldn’t be eradicated entirely, but they’d certainly become very rare indeed under the scenario you outline.

Here’s a question, how often do you think gang members check the news, or political press releases to see if the crime they’re about to commit has had a different sentance assigned to it? I’m guessing not too often. Not that I’m opposed to harsher sentance for gun crimes, but looking it as the top way to reduce crime is a bit naive I think.

Most of the youth workers, and people that live in the effected neighbourhoods in Toronto seem to think that the first priority should be getting guns off the streets, and I agree. These sources also say that the US border is where most of these guns come from. I think the least the gov’t should be doing at this point is making sure that all border crossings are manned 24/7. Try it for six months and then see if it reduces the amount of guns available on the street.

Then failing that I guess we could label all criminals evil, sadistic, sociopathic thugs and start creating massive super prisons to hold the thousands of people that will be calling them home for the rest of their lives.

>>”And yet Mike H the inside is preferable to a segment of the criminal population - sometimes it’s even a seasonal thing. I know of a person who commits a crime every year in about September that is just severe enough to put him in jail for 7 or 8 months until the weather warms up again. Uneducated, unemployable, homeless — jail is preferable for him, at least during the winter. Is he a living myth?”

A very small segment SL, the cliched ” institutionalized.”

Since I have some experience with the workings of the criminal justice system, I’m gonna ask you what type of crime your acquaintance manages to commit each and every September, that allows him his 7 or 8 months of warm and cozy time. Because in my experience, jail sentences of that duration for property crime are very hard to come by these days.

An offender’s previous criminal record has become a marginal factor in sentencing now, as our criminal courts bend over backwards to find reasons for sentences other than custodial. Our justice system is routinely handing out non-custodial sentences, or sentences measured in weeks, not months, to many violent offenders and sex offenders. Your acquaintance and his ” just severe enough to spend the winter in jail ” crime tale is one I’ve heard many times before, from many tellers. It’s a bit of an urban legend, SL.

>”Admittedly when someone is in jail their chances of doing anything criminal that will affect the outside population is slim, but if jail is a deterent why do so many people end up there?’

“Slim,” SL? How charitable of you to concede that.

Why do so many people end up there? Hmmmmm, let’s see…. Because they get caught doing very bad things? Yup, I think that’s right. And on occasion, when they get caught doing very bad things, the courts do their job, and lock them up. Usually not for very long, but better than kicking them back out onto the street with nothing more than a probation order and an admonishment to be good boys.

>>”Well, that certainly shows where you come down on this issue Mike H, criminals are bad, just plain bad, nothing concrete contributed to that state of badness, they are just bad.

Poverty is not a contributor to crime, lack of education is not a contributor to crime, and lack of employment and employment opportunity is not a contributor to crime, lack of hope is not a contributor to crime - that’s all just John Howard Society bullshit.”

Pretty close, SL. Most criminals I’ve dealt with were and are ” bad.” Even some of the more charismatic rogues were still morally challenged, ” bad ” people. Many reform, and as a result, are no longer ” bad.” If a person has stayed out of trouble for years, and made a determined effort to turn his life around, then I don’t consider them ” bad” or ” criminals ” any more. Unfortunately, many don’t reform SL, but you’re trying to conflate the former with the latter, and that just isn’t gonna fly.

There will always be offenders who turn to crime because of economic hardship, or lack of education, or other social factors. In all but a few extraordinary cases, these people are simply individuals who made conscious decisions to become criminals in addition to being poor, or to become criminals in addition to being poorly educated. But they made the decision SL, a decision that many in the same situations don’t make. Being poor or uneducated isn’t an excuse to break the law.

I’ve no problem with second chances for offenders in cases of property crime, even third and fourth chances if the circumstances justify it. You fail to realize that the courts have been doing this for years, SL. Property and drug possession crimes are rarely dealt with by way of incarceration, and never by way of significant terms of incarceration, for youth offenders or offenders with minor criminal records. And I’m fine with that, contrary to the ” lock’em up and throw away the key ” image you’re trying to hang on me. Get the teens and novice criminals into counselling and adult education programs. All for it, SL. Repeat offenders however, lose the moral right to employ the defence of the downtrodden.

>>”People are not born bad Mike H, and that’s not John Howard Society bullshit, that’s not liberal socialist rhetoric, that’s not sweetness and light hippie talk, that’s just a plain simple fact. I suppose I could do a whole bunch of research and quote it here to show that the majority of people who commit crime crimes against people or property (that is to say, not petty crime like teenagers shoplifting, visiting the bootlegger, or buying a bag of recreational weed) come from disadvantaged, under-educated, impoverished, situations — but I think you already know that don’t you?”

I’m sure Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, and thousands of other Canadian killers would be pleased to hear you say they weren’t born bad. Not that whether they were born bad is the real issue, is it? You have a difficult time acknowledging that at some point, they became bad at all, SL. And if they did become bad, well it wasn’t their fault. Now that is “John Howard Society bullshit,” it is “liberal socialist rhetoric,” and it is ” sweetness and light hippie talk.”

To repeat what I said above, being poor and under-educated does not entitle one to commit crimes. In all but a few cases, it doesn’t excuse or justify their crimes. Most people who are poor and under-educated understand that, because they live their lives in a morally responsible fashion. If a poor, under-educated man makes a decision to try to overcome economic disadvantage by joining a gang, dealing drugs, getting himself a Glock, and eventually kills someone, I’m not going to be one of his apologists.
I’ll leave that to you, and that requires no ” shoving words ” into your mouth.

Likewise, I’m not going to act as an apologist for the many offenders who don’t come from poor and underprivileged backgrounds, something I’ve seen plenty of SL, but apparently your ” research ” doesn’t reveal.

>>”People who are well fed, well clothed, well educated, and who have a sense of direction and hope in their lives are not prone to committing crimes against people and property — unless of course you are right, and criminals are born just plain bad,….”

I am right. If I wasn’t, you’d be able to explain to me why so many poor people don’t commit property crimes to assuage their poverty, and conversely, you’d be able to explain to me why so many murderers, assaultive offenders, sex offenders, and white colour thieves don’t come from poor backgrounds.

Candace, thanks that was a great find. In my opinion that guys one of Toronto’s best MCs, good to see he’s doing something positive with the attention.

I’m not dismissing them, but referring to a group of people as “evil, sadistic, sociopath thugs” won’t get you anywhere in reducing their numbers or understanding how people get to that state. If we don’t strive to understand that as a society, we’re going to have a constant supply of them to replace all the people we’ll have to throw in jail.

The main point of my post was I think the border is an excellent place to start in reducing the amount guns on city streets. I think we all need to see numbers about where the guns come from that that policing are seizing.

For example:

My brother lives in Chicago, he’s an avid hunter and went to a gun show last week, where he was able to buy pretty much anything he liked without paperwork or ID. We have borders that have no guards at them at certain times of the day. If you were an illegal gun dealer would you try and keep yourself supplied by constantly finding people to do break and entries for you or would you make the occasional road trip?

They’re inherently evil, and until we find a way to genetically re-engineer evil out of the human psyche, our only course of action as a society is to become very adept at apprehending them, and resolute in keeping them locked up.

This is something we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on.

However, I’m not opposed to minimum sentances, but you’ve at least got to agree that we could cut down on the number of guns coming across the border if there were guards at them can’t you? With unmanned borders there is absolutely zero risk of getting caught at the border with a truck load of guns, you don’t see this as an addressable issue? Didn’t you say something earlier about people being deterred by the risk of getting caught?

>>”This is something we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on.”

No problem. The belief that we’re all born pure and saintly, and it’s society that turns some of us into monsters, is something that many cling to with religious-like fervour. Cling away, Peter.

>>”However, I’m not opposed to minimum sentances, but you’ve at least got to agree that we could cut down on the number of guns coming across the border if there were guards at them can’t you? With unmanned borders there is absolutely zero risk of getting caught at the border with a truck load of guns, you don’t see this as an addressable issue? Didn’t you say something earlier about people being deterred by the risk of getting caught?”

To be honest, Peter, I wasn’t aware we had any unmanned official entry points along the border. Are you sure about that? If you are correct, then of course, all entry points should be staffed. But we’re talking about 4000 miles of border. You can’t seal a border of that length. My earlier point stands. Relying on interdiction at the border as a means of significantly reducing the number of illegal guns entering the country is an exercise in futility.

>>”There’s absolutely no value in the statement, Mike. It’s simply a closed loop. They’re bad because they’re bad because they’re bad because… ”

Balb, I guess there’d be ” no value ” in the statement if the statement wasn’t true. If it is true, as I believe it to be, then it has value. So………….., I’d say a debate concerning the veracity of the statement is in order, wouldn’t you?

“’d say a debate concerning the veracity of the statement is in order, wouldn’t you?”

Well, if you choose to take on the task of defining “evil”, be my guest.

I will point out, however, that this is one area in which spiritual leaders and psychologists generaly agree. A Christian would hold that no soul is “inherently” evil, as that would place it beyond redemption, or beyond the power of God’s grace. So in a Christian context, the statement is meaningless.

When you chose to introduce the notion of “inherent evil”, you moved the discussion from the empirical plane to the moral. I’m citing the moral authorities here. Are you Christian?

Sorry for the late reply Mike H… spending time with family before they all headed back to their respective places of residence took priority :-)

A very small segment SL, the cliched ” institutionalized.”

As you say Mike H, of course, since you brought up Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, and Robert Pickton - definately the exceptions rather than the rule, and most certainly a small segment - so I don’t feel too bad about it.

Since I have some experience with the workings of the criminal justice system, I’m gonna ask you what type of crime your acquaintance manages to commit each and every September, that allows him his 7 or 8 months of warm and cozy time.

If I recall correctly it was a rock through the windshied of an RCMP vehicle, fleeing, and [token] resisting arrest.

An offender’s previous criminal record has become a marginal factor in sentencing now, as our criminal courts bend over backwards to find reasons for sentences other than custodial.

I don’t disagree with you at all Mike, somewhere in here I even said that courts had no business trying to address circumstances and situations in sentencing.

Your acquaintance and his ” just severe enough to spend the winter in jail ” crime tale is one I’ve heard many times before, from many tellers. It’s a bit of an urban legend, SL.

You are of course free to believe whatever you will Mike H, I’m telling you what I’ve seen.

SL >”Admittedly when someone is in jail their chances of doing anything criminal that will affect the outside population is slim, but if jail is a deterent why do so many people end up there?’

MH >“Slim,” SL? How charitable of you to concede that.

What can I say, I’m a reasonable guy :-)

Why do so many people end up there? Hmmmmm, let’s see…. Because they get caught doing very bad things? Yup, I think that’s right.

Yes they do, we seem to disagree on why they do these bad things though. You seem to believe that they are bad people doing bad things end of story, toss them in jail. I don’t believe that people are born bad and want to know what made them choose the criminal route, why they chose to do “bad”, and believe that the government (as well as others) plays a role in addressing that.

As I said before, and you appeared to disagree with, well off, well fed, well clothed, people, with hope in their lives, rarely major commit crimes.

And on occasion, when they get caught doing very bad things, the courts do their job, and lock them up.

As they should but that still does not address the “why they turned to crime” question does it?

Poverty is not a contributor to crime, lack of education is not a contributor to crime, and lack of employment and employment opportunity is not a contributor to crime, lack of hope is not a contributor to crime - that’s all just John Howard Society bullshit.”

I spent most of my life living in small poverty stricken communities where hope is slim Mike H, in all of them I knew the detachment members, was friends with a lot of them, sat in the detachment offices, had coffee, and shot the shit with them about (among other things) just this topic — they disagree with you.

Pretty close, SL. Most criminals I’ve dealt with were and are ” bad.” Even some of the more charismatic rogues were still morally challenged, ” bad ” people.

And they were born bad right? Nothing other than that comes into play, bad from birth?

In all but a few extraordinary cases, these people are simply individuals who made conscious decisions to become criminals in addition to being poor, or to become criminals in addition to being poorly educated. But they made the decision SL, a decision that many in the same situations don’t make.

And they did that because they were just plain bad? Born bad? Nothign else came into play?

Being poor or uneducated isn’t an excuse to break the law.

I never said it was.

You fail to realize that the courts have been doing this for years, SL.

I fail to realize nothing of the sort Mike H, I have said before (either here or elsewhere - I forget at the moment) that the courts should not be taking into account circumstances and conditions. Having said the we, as a society, need to find out what causes people to turn to crime and attempt to deal with that.

I’m sure Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, and thousands of other Canadian killers would be pleased to hear you say they weren’t born bad.

See above

Not that whether they were born bad is the real issue, is it? You have a difficult time acknowledging that at some point, they became bad at all, SL.

Nope, not at all…. but they did become bad for a reason Mike H. Care to speculate on what the reasons may be?

And if they did become bad, well it wasn’t their fault. Now that is “John Howard Society bullshit,” it is “liberal socialist rhetoric,” and it is ” sweetness and light hippie talk.”

Never said that either Mike, but there was obviously a reason wasn’t there?

To repeat what I said above, being poor and under-educated does not entitle one to commit crimes.

To repeat what I’ve said above, I never said it was. You appear simply to choose not to consider things like that as any sort of significant factor.

Likewise, I’m not going to act as an apologist for the many offenders who don’t come from poor and underprivileged backgrounds, something I’ve seen plenty of SL, but apparently your ” research ” doesn’t reveal.

And in your experience what sort of ball park ratio of “well off, well educated, well fed, well clothed, hope in life” -to- “poor, poorly educated, unemployed, little hope, stuck where they happen to be” would you give me?

>>”People who are well fed, well clothed, well educated, and who have a sense of direction and hope in their lives are not prone to committing crimes against people and property — unless of course you are right, and criminals are born just plain bad,….”

I am right. If I wasn’t, you’d be able to explain to me why so many poor people don’t commit property crimes to assuage their poverty, and conversely, you’d be able to explain to me why so many murderers, assaultive offenders, sex offenders, and white colour thieves don’t come from poor backgrounds.

Again I’ll ask you for some sort of ball park ratio Mike H. What is it? Do more well educated, well off, people commit crimes than under educated, poor people, with little hope, do?

SL:

See ya tomorrow, no time tonight. Good to see your priorities were in order the other night. Hope you had a good holiday season with the clan.

Holy crap I almost stopped reading after the twentieth comment. It is hard to count the number of rat holes that this thread has followed (albeit somewhat relevant ones).

But for all you self proclaimed genticists read the following;

“There is no single gene capable of producing criminal behavior per se,” writes noted University of Southern California criminal psychologist Dr. Adrian Raine in The Psychopathology of Crime (Academic Press, 1993).

FSU behavioral geneticist Dr. Glayde Whitney, past president of the Behavioral Genetics Association, says “The concept of human behavior being derived entirely by either genetic factors or by environmental factors is no longer tenable scientifically,” he said. “In most cases, both factors are vigorously at work, the only question is to what degree.”

Science seems to support to a large degree that we are at least not born evil or bad.

But really what has this to do with who we vote for?

Tougher sentences for crime is rhetoric used to win an election and has been for generations. It is the last ditch effort when there are no real policy platforms.

So I am going to vote for the man not the party because at the moment THEY ALL BITE ! (-:

SL:

>>”As you say Mike H, of course, since you brought up Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, and Robert Pickton - definately the exceptions rather than the rule, and most certainly a small segment - so I don’t feel too bad about it.”

These guys aren’t ” institutionalized,” in the sense we were talking about, SL. We were referring to those who prefer life inside a prison to life in society. Olsen, Bernardo, and Pickton don’t qualify.

>>”If I recall correctly it was a rock through the windshied of an RCMP vehicle, fleeing, and [token] resisting arrest.”

He did that every September? And he served 8 months? My kind of judge.

>>”I don’t disagree with you at all Mike, somewhere in here I even said that courts had no business trying to address circumstances and situations in sentencing.”

I disagree with that statement completely. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to elaborate.

>>”You are of course free to believe whatever you will Mike H, I’m telling you what I’ve seen.”

And I’m telling you that in nearly 24 years of policing, 19 of it spent in frontline uniform patrol or plain clothes criminal investigations, I never saw it. But as I said, I heard the tale many times, always from civilians.

>>”Yes they do, we seem to disagree on why they do these bad things though. You seem to believe that they are bad people doing bad things end of story, toss them in jail. I don’t believe that people are born bad and want to know what made them choose the criminal route, why they chose to do “bad”, and believe that the government (as well as others) plays a role in addressing that.

Well, we certainly do disagree on why they do ” bad things.” All crimes are not created equal, something I thought I had established in my first post, when I stated:

I’m all for programs targeting ” root causes,” but let’s dispense with the John Howard Society bullshit that people commit serious crimes because they have ” no hope.” Bad people usually murder, rape, commit home invasions, car jackings and other armed holdups because they’re, well…, bad…..”

There’s a huge difference between “serious crimes” and other lesser offences. I happen to believe that most people who commit crimes are ” bad,” for the period of their lives that they’re engaging in criminal activity (let’s leave out the pot smoking, I’m not going to get into a long tangental discussion about legalizing weed. I’m not opposed. That should nip that in the bud, no pun inteeded). As I said in an earlier comment, I don’t consider people who got themselves into trouble, then learned from it, or got some help, and have been good law abiding citizens ever since, to be ” bad. ” Alot has been said about ” evil ” in this thread. In my view, “evil” is a special kind of bad, reserved for the worst our species has to offer. Most ” bad ” people can be helped or convinced to mend their ways. Evil people can’t be, and yes, they’re born that way, as far as I’m concerned.

>>”As I said before, and you appeared to disagree with, well off, well fed, well clothed, people, with hope in their lives, rarely major commit crimes.”

Yup, I disagree big time. Because I’ve seen well off, well fed, well clothed people commit lots of criminal acts, both serious and not so serious. I’ve always been mystified by this leftist misconception that people with money in their pockets, people from the middle class, don’t beat their wives, rape and murder strangers, molest children, steal from their employers, drive drunk and kill people, beat up people in bars………, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. As I mentioned earlier, SL, you’re conflating theft with all crime, and that completely distorts criminality and society, and the debate about its causes.

>>” I spent most of my life living in small poverty stricken communities where hope is slim Mike H, in all of them I knew the detachment members, was friends with a lot of them, sat in the detachment offices, had coffee, and shot the shit with them about (among other things) just this topic — they disagree with you.”

For starters, the block quote to which you’ve responded is your own previous comment, not mine. I don’t dispute the fact that some people turn to crime because of poverty. If a community consists of primarily impoverished inhabitants, then it becomes easy to blame all crime on poverty and disadvantage. And I’m sure the Mounties you were friends with would see it in a similar light. But that theory falls apart when you police in communities that aren’t impoverished across the board, as I have.

>>”And they were born bad right? Nothing other than that comes into play, bad from birth?”

See above.

>>”And they did that because they were just plain bad? Born bad? Nothign else came into play?”

In the “few extraordinary cases,” yes other things come into play. Like most of us who are pushing 50 in this country, I grew up in a lower middle class family. Four kids. We weren’t poor, but there wasn’t much money left over at the end of the week, once the necessities were taken care of. All our neighbours, and most of our relatives were in the same boat. But it never dawned on me to steal the things my parents couldn’t afford to buy me. I can’t say the same for all the kids that were in my neighbourhood, or that I went to school with. They were different from the rest of us. Not different economically, but different in their behaviour and their morals. For them, something else was definitely ” in play.”

>>”Being poor or uneducated isn’t an excuse to break the law.”

“I never said it was.”

It’s crying out from every word you type, SL. You’re excusing and justifying criminal conduct, on the grounds that those committing it have no choice, and aren’t morally different in their makeup from those who don’t engage in criminal conduct.

>>”I fail to realize nothing of the sort Mike H, I have said before (either here or elsewhere - I forget at the moment) that the courts should not be taking into account circumstances and conditions. Having said the we, as a society, need to find out what causes people to turn to crime and attempt to deal with that.”

SL, you’ve made it very clear that you don’t particularly like the idea of most offenders going to jail for their crimes. The impression I get from your post is that you believe most people do go to jail for their crimes. They don’t, especially not property crimes. People who are being incarcerated today for property offences are multiple, chronic offenders.

>>”Nope, not at all…. but they did become bad for a reason Mike H. Care to speculate on what the reasons may be?”

That’s what I’ve been doing SL. In Bernardo and Pickton’s case, it sure wasn’t because they were poor.

“And if they did become bad, well it wasn’t their fault. Now that is “John Howard Society bullshit,” it is “liberal socialist rhetoric,” and it is ” sweetness and light hippie talk.”

>>”Never said that either Mike, but there was obviously a reason wasn’t there?”

Didn’t say it? Your posts reek of it.

>>”And in your experience what sort of ball park ratio of “well off, well educated, well fed, well clothed, hope in life” -to- “poor, poorly educated, unemployed, little hope, stuck where they happen to be” would you give me?”

Depends on the nature of the crime you’re talking about. Drug abuse certainly fuelled alot of the stuff I dealt with, but there were plenty of exceptions. Sex offenders defied economic considerations. Murders are similar. Many high profile cases in southwestern Ontario over the years, involving non-disadvantaged perpetrators, and of course many not as well. White collar thieves were invariably middle class or more well to do. Wife beaters ran the gamut as well. Bar brawler types, guys with hair trigger tempers who’d rather fight than fuck, same thing. You were either that way, or you weren’t. Money had nothing to do with it. Plenty of young offenders committing break-ins and thefts came from good homes where poverty wasn’t an issue. It was rare, but not unheard of, to encounter middle class adults engaged in property crime.

>>”Again I’ll ask you for some sort of ball park ratio Mike H. What is it? Do more well educated, well off, people commit crimes than under educated, poor people, with little hope, do? ”

As you can see from what I said above, crime is not confined in the least to the downtrodden. I would certainly say that some forms of property crime were predominately committed by the poor, but that doesn’t explain away the young offenders from middle class homes, or the white collar and corporate thieves and fraud artists.

So I’ll ask you again. How do you account for the wide spectrum of criminal acts committed by people who don’t fit neatly into your disadvantaged class? They’re different from you and I SL, because they think differently, not because they have less money than you and I. Because, as I’ve shown above, in many cases, they don’t have less money.

>>”So you believe in an ineradicable, inherent quality called “evil”, divorced entirely from social, psychological and physical factors? ”

Yup, but with reservations on the inclusion of ” psychological,” Balb. I believe that a propensity for evil is a psychological disorder, but one that is innate. I believe it’s ” ineradicable,” at present, but science may change that someday.

Bill:

“But for all you self proclaimed genticists read the following;

“There is no single gene capable of producing criminal behavior per se,” writes noted University of Southern California criminal psychologist Dr. Adrian Raine in The Psychopathology of Crime (Academic Press, 1993).

FSU behavioral geneticist Dr. Glayde Whitney, past president of the Behavioral Genetics Association, says “The concept of human behavior being derived entirely by either genetic factors or by environmental factors is no longer tenable scientifically,” he said. “In most cases, both factors are vigorously at work, the only question is to what degree.”

Thanks for confirming what this non-geneticist has been saying. Your expert, Whitney, concedes that the requisite genetic disorder is necessary for criminality to occur. I’m not really interested if it results from a combination of environment and genetic factors, only that it includes genetic factors.

I love how you folks on the left have no difficulty acknowledging that positive mental accuities, particularly exceptional accuities, are often innate, but negative mental behaviour simply can’t be.

True in many senses….

[…..]

These are the people I would vote for regardless of Party.

Driven by the party whip and buried in the party machine what difference will they make? The party tells its members how to vote on any significant issue, and even if the individuals party does get elected, unless they are cabinet level folks, when was the last time a party back-bencher accomplished much?

So it is possible to vote for the man if this is the rational you use to decide. when there is no party worth voting for, even if the man happens to be a green party member and has no chance of getting in, he is still the better man for the job.

That may well be the case, but what have you accomplished by voting that way? Can I interest you in the

THIS BALLOT INTENTIONALLY SPOILLED!!
The system is broken
No one speaks for me

movement?

A spoiled ballot simply says to me that the voter does not care, and when people cease to care then then inmates will really start to run the asylum (thanks Brewster for the metaphor)

I guess not :-)

Staying home is apathy - unless of course you are staying home with a huge lawn sign that says you are boycotting the election because the system is flawed.

A spoiled ballot, when properly spoiled, is a statement. I recall watching a guy (who became a very good friend btw) spend 1/2 an hour proving he was eligable to vote and then ripping his ballot to shreds at the polling station while telling people why he was ripping it up.

“A huge lawn sign that says you are boycotting the election because the system is flawed.”

I like that Idea, but you know I couldn’t do it.

“I love how you folks on the left”…

>>” No generalizations here, nope…”

Yeah, I think we can score that one as unfair. Into the penalty box I go. Not so much because people who lean left usually reject the argument that genetic factors can cause criminal behaviour (they do reject it), but because others of a religious bent, who may or may not be ideologically left leaning, reject the theory as well, but for different reasons, as you mentioned earlier. Therefore it was wrong of me to single out only the Left.

>>”I have no idea what that that’s is supposed to mean.”
Well you would have, if ” acuity ” meant what I thought it did. I took it to be a term for exceptional mental capabilities, as this online definition (”a quick and penetrating intelligence”) from Merriam Webster denotes. Seems the more accurate definition involves exceptionally enhanced perception.

Now that I’ve got that embarrassing little matter out of the way, I’ll re-word the offending paragraph to make it understandable:

” I love how you folks on the left have no difficulty acknowledging that positive mental capabilities, particularly exceptional capabilities, are often innate, but negative mental behaviour simply can’t be.”

In other words, no one gets their shorts in a knot if I assert that genius on a par with Einstein or Stephen Hawking is primarily innate. On the other hand, if I suggest that Paul Bernardo’s criminal behaviour is also the result of innate hardwiring, the naysayers rise up indignantly.

>>” We’re born with neural structures that are largely of function of heridity. These develop in response to an enormous range of environmental and heriditary factors. They affect, and are are eventually affected by, our cognitive functions. Where do we disagree, and what is this about the “innateness” of positive and mental behaviour?”

I don’t know Balb. Where do we disagree? You’ve been gently probing my argument, without committing to a definitive position on the subject yourself. Do you believe that genes play a role in criminal behaviour, or not?

“Do you believe that genes play a role in criminal behaviour, or not?”

Definitely. I said: “We’re born with neural structures that are largely of function of heridity. These develop in response to an enormous range of environmental and heriditary factors. They affect, and are are eventually affected by, our cognitive functions.”

Sorry I wrote that rather quickly there are two typos (as follows)

3. A predisposition for violent behavior does not make some one “bad or evil” that requires action which makes everyone neutral At Birth. A dog is not dangerous until it acts on its agression, but it has the predisposition to do harm. This logic makes all dogs bad.

Your position on a inherent quality called “evil” makes you a Positivist.

Ooops.

Hey, wait a minute. What about me? Here I am doing my best to figure out what we’re arguing about, and you’re leaving?

Balb:

Nice ” Jinx Posting.”

Once you and I agree on something, it takes all the fun out of the thread.

I’ve had enough of Bill’s antics. Besides, there really isn’t much else left for me to say on the topic.

But if you have anything to add, I’ll stick around. :>)

Sorry you feel that way Mike, I find it mentally exhausting debating with someone that sees only their point of view in everything they read.

I think I did an adequate job defending the fact that the positions of both Whitney and Raine were in not disagreement with my stance. (read the last comment more critically)

When you become capable of reading an academic argument, not writen in “working man’s English” I would be happy to debate with you again.

But this debate (at least between you and I) much as it was, is complete.

>>” I wanted to ask if you thought something like this might have any affect on how people turn out, and the decisions they might make, later in life.”

Definitely, SL, but not entirely for the reasons you might have in mind.

Of course, abusive environments will contribute in some measure, in some cases, to future criminality. However, I think you have overlooked the exact opposite dynamic coming into play in some cases. Individuals having the bad luck to start life in some supremely shitty environments have used the experience to define precisely how they will not live their lives, once they are eventually in a position to exert full control over their future.

In my view, it is illogical to assert that people, having been subjected in their formative years to the unpleasantries of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and poverty, will decide to go for more of the same as adults, as a conscious choice for themselves or their children. In fact, we know that many do rise above that type of start, which only makes sense, as far as I can deduce.

Without minimizing the horrors of the acts you cite in your post, is it the acts themselves that prompt the aberrant behaviour later in life, or are they the result of a genetic propensity to commit the same acts?